Orbitz 2012 Annual Report Download - page 27

27
parties motion to stay the action pending final determination of the Monroe County, Florida matter. On February 11, 2011, the
Circuit Court granted the parties joint motion to lift the stay and entered the parties' joint stipulation for partial dismissal of
claims in accordance with the class action settlement in the Monroe County, Florida matter.
Orbitz, LLC v. Osceola, Florida (Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida): On August 27,
2010, Osceola County, Florida issued estimated assessments against various Orbitz entities. On October 27, 2010, the County
denied the Company's appeal and finalized assessments of approximately $1.0 against Orbitz, Inc. and Orbitz, LLC and
approximately $0.2 million against Trip Network, Inc. and Internetwork Publishing Corp. On January 24, 2011, the online
travel companies filed a complaint in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida against Osceola County
and the Florida Department of Revenue asserting that they are not subject to the tourist development tax.
Orbitz, LLC v. Hawaii Department of Taxation (Hawaii Tax Appeal Court). On December 30, 2010, the State of Hawaii
Department of Taxation issued a series of "proposed" assessments for the transient accommodations tax and general excise tax
totaling approximately $10.2 million against various Orbitz entities. On January 31, 2011, the Department of Revenue issued
its Final Notices of Assessments for those same amounts. On March 1, 2011, the online travel companies filed their Notice of
Appeal to the Tax Appeal Court. On May 8, 2012, the Hawaii Department of Taxation issued additional proposed assessments
for the period of January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2011 totaling approximately $48.6 million against the Orbitz entities
bringing the total amount of assessments to approximately $58.8 million. On October 22, 2012, the Tax Appeal Court orally
denied the Department of Taxation's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the online travel companies' motion for
partial summary judgment on the transient accommodations tax. On January 11, 2013, the Tax Court of Appeal orally granted
in part the Department of Taxation's motion for summary judgment and denied the online travel companies' motion as it relates
to application of the general excise tax. On February 8, 2013, the online travel companies filed a motion for reconsideration.
Expedia, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, (District Court, Denver Colorado): On February 8, 2012, the
City's appointed hearing officer issued his final administrative decision finding the online travel companies are subject to
Denver's Lodger's Tax, and approved an assessment against Orbitz in the amount of $0.6 million. On February 13, 2012, the
online travel companies filed their notice of intent to appeal the hearing officer's final administrative decision. On March 30,
2012, the City filed a motion to dismiss the first claim for relief of the online travel companies' complaint. On July 26, 2012,
the District Court denied the City's motion to dismiss. On October 2, 2012, the online travel companies filed their brief
supporting their claim for relief.
In Re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases, Coordination Proceeding No. 4472 (Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles).
City of Anaheim
On February 1, 2010, the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California granted defendants' writ of
mandate finding the City's ordinance does not impose a transient occupancy tax based on the retail price of hotel rooms
rented by or through the defendants and setting aside the Hearing Officer's decision to the contrary. On August 30, 2010,
the Court granted the online travel companies' Consolidated Demurrer to the City of Anaheim's First Amended Cross-
Complaint. On December 16, 2010, the Court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus remanding the proceedings to the
City's hearing officer directing him to withdraw his February 6, 2009 decision ruling that the online travel companies are
“operators” of hotels, and thus, liable for transient occupancy tax on the amount each received as payment for its online
travel related services. The Court also dismissed with prejudice the City's causes of action for preliminary and permanent
injunction, conversion, violation of California Civil Code § 2223, violation of California Civil Code § 2224, imposition
of a constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. On January 24, 2011, the City of Anaheim filed its notice of appeal. On November 1, 2012, the Court of
Appeal of the State of California affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of
the online travel companies. On January 23, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied review, thereby ending the case.
City of San Francisco
On March 3, 2010, the City of San Francisco issued a final assessment of approximately $3.2 million for the
period of January 1, 2000 to September 30, 2008, including penalties and interest through March 31, 2008, against
various Orbitz entities. On March 31, 2010, we paid the final assessment pursuant to the City's "pay to play"
requirement. On April 2, 2010, we filed a refund request with the City. On May 14, 2010, the online travel companies
filed a Complaint for Tax Refund and Declaratory Relief against the City and County of San Francisco seeking a tax
refund and declaratory relief. On December 18, 2012, the City of San Francisco issued supplemental final assessments of
approximately $1.4 million against Orbitz LLC, Trip Network, Inc. and Internetwork Publishing Corp. On January 2,